43. Materially injurious dumping has not in our view been a main feature of the industry's troubles in recent years. Allegations of dumping may often relate to allegedly subsidised imports from developing (particularly Commonwealth) countries; there have been no formal applications for anti-dumping or countervailing action against textiles from such countries. The Textile Industry Support Campaign has said that other developed countries do not produce textiles more cheaply than our industry and argued that in as much as their textiles are sold more cheaply in the UK than the domestic product, their goods must therefore be dumped. But the Textile Council's calculations on comparative costs showed disparities to the UK's disadvantage between UK costs and those of other developed countries, as well as those of the low-cost producers of the Far East and elsewhere.
NOTES:
44.
Q:
A:
Are our anti-dumping legislation and administration effective enough in the textile field?
UK anti-dumping legislation and administration are effective and consistent with the GATT Anti-Dumping Code, which operates to the general advantage of the UK by protecting our own exports from arbitrary anti-dumping action in other countries. Cheap imports from low-labour cost countries or from other countries with cost advantages are not necessarily "dumped" within the meaning of the Act ie the export price is not by any means always below the domestic price at the same point of sale. There have in fact been very few cases submitted to us in the textile field. Moreover, the efficacy of anti-dumping action cannot be judged by the number of cases in which Parliament has been asked to approve the imposition of special duties. It can also have a useful deterrent effect and has benefited the industry directly in some cases, eg Spanish corduroy, Austrian rayon yarn and Canadian eighties square by leading to remedial action by the exporting country. My Department is prepared to consider any new application quickly and carefully.
13.